Re: Stuart Kauffman is always interesting

Re: Stuart Kauffman is always interesting

Great - then let me post here where you'll find it a little carry-on from what I was maundering about in regards film vs. novel writing a bit below.

This is from a seventies NY Times review of John Fowles' Daniel Martin, a book that is part of what drew me to ten years in England, all its adventures and impressions enjoyed again now:

'Among the many subjects that Daniel Martin keeps mulling over at length are the esthetics of cinema and his particular dissatisfaction with them: "In the very act of creating its own past, the past of the scenario and the past, of the shooting, [the final cut] destroys the past of the mind of each spectator. Images are inherently fascistic because they overstamp the truth, however dim and blurred, of the real past experience, as if, faced with ruins, we must turn architects, not archeologists. The word is the most imprecise of signs. Only a science-obsessed age could fail to comprehend that this is its great virtue, not its defect. What I was trying to tell Jenny in Hollywood was that I would murder my past if I tried to evoke it on camera; and it is precisely because I can't really evoke it in words, can only hope to awaken some analogous experience in other memories and sensitivities, that it must be written."'